Talk:Jürgen Chrobog

Copyvio
The article is basically copying what is writtein in foxhall-group about page. This may violate WP:COPYVIO AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * alleged copyvio in their edit summary for an edit that you partially reverted. Unfortunately they did not specify, but it seems they may have believed some text you restored was a copyvio. Your version is in any event rather long-winded and repetitive, so I intend to tighten up those sections of the article, and that way get at any remaining copyvio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs)
 * The user is actually a WP:BKFIP sock. The text he has removed wasn't added by me. --  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Subsections
- ''«Reverted edit by User:Alexander Davronov. The section header is totally undue, particularly since the emphasis of the sources is on the NATO discussions rather than on him. A case could be made for removing the 2nd sentence, since he just happens to have been quoted. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF.»''
 * I propose we keep subsection per MOS:BODY to improve readability. I don't think it's undue.

AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 07:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I oppose on the grounds stated in my edit summary. Out of a career of, what, 33 years, including multiple ambassadorships and multiple positions as a leader within his government department, you propose making a subheading for his participation in one set of negotiations, because a remark he made was subsequently leaked and cited by Tass? It's very much undue. I'm more inclined to remove the sentence about his later remark per WP:COATRACK and because it says nothing about his career or Chrobog himself; note the "we" in the quotation. Its newsworthiness has nothing to do with him personally, and where the material properly belongs is in article(s) about the history of expansion of NATO to include countries formerly in the Eastern Bloc, and the Russian reaction. If the article needs to be subdivided, it should have sections for his ambassadorships and his ministerial positions; his role in the 2+4 negotiations would then go in the subsection for his heading Genscher's office as Foreign Minister. But it's a short article, with very little to say about any of his career stages (which probably means he was a good diplomat and civil servant). So I really don't see the need for any subdivisions of his career. The most appropriate subdivision, in my view, would be a separate Early life and education (naming the universities rather than the cities) and a separate Later life on his post-retirement board membership and the Yemen incident. But again, it's a short article, reflecting the sources we have, and I don't believe subdivision is needed. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nuh, I want it just because it's important topic in relation to Unification of Germany and NATO enlargement that readers would certainly seek for. I just want to make it easier for them to find it. We got proper sourcing which is just enough to have this information. You are not supposed to like it.  You can't justify removal of subtitle by this. You are free to expand it and rewrite it. I stand by my proposal.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly; it's relevant to those topics, not so much to his life. A link to his name in those articles for a reader who wants to find out who he was is sufficient. This article should be a well sourced account of Chrobog's life and career, and shouldn't have things stuffed into it, or emphasized, because his name is mentioned or because readers might be interested in those topics; that's why we have pages on them. That is part of the BLP policy; the article should be based on what's been written about Chrobog, himself. Since you raised the point of MOS:BODY, I offered you two suggestions for breaking up the Life and career paragraph; if that's your concern, you should expand the article and further section it on lines like that. But his role in 2+4 doesn't merit a subsection. I've reworded and tightened the material; it's in there. Highlighting it with a subsection is contrary to policy. (I also gave you a link above to WP:COATRACK.) There is my explanation of why having a subsection for these mentions is, in my opinion, not only not an improvement of this article but contrary to policy. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but his career is where his WP:Notability (people) comes from. Nope. There is no provision for that and never been. There is no consensus either. Quite an opposite. Subsectioning is always good. WP:COATRACK isn't relevant here because the subject of this article took a significant part in politics in 90s. His political career is directly related to him.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're just repeating yourself. If you can find other things he did in his career to include, by all means add them. But sectioning is not for its own sake, and an article, especially a biography of a living person, shouldn't be a collection of mere mentions. I left all the items in the article. I've noted how the article could in theory be further sectioned, but a special subsection for something where his name is merely mentioned because he's the one being quoted would be totally undue, and the importance is to the topic of the negotiations and NATO policy. It simply isn't true that that means it's a major thing in his career, and the sources demonstrate that; no source that is about him highlights that as a major thing in his career. It's one thing he did as part of that stage of his career. Not even mentioned in, for example, the Deutsche Welle article. The sources don't justify giving it its own subheading in this article, the article about Chrobog. (I also wouldn't be surprised if there are few sources that can be used to expand the article with more details about his career. He was a foreign ministry bureaucrat and a diplomat; discretion and facilitating agreement were important parts of his job duties). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since 1991 Chrobog was a major adviser to Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and his successor Klaus Kinkel, then, in 1995 he became a Western Germany ambassador (not coincidence I'm sure) to the US. No chance he could avoid witnessing the reunification done by highest-profile respresentatives of powers that have controlled Germany, let alone not-directing it joining process with NATO aftewards (which was extensively discussed). It was part of his job and I think you wrongly downplay it. Media often refer to Chrobog for his role in the affair. E.g. . I see a lot of evidence that it's important and would be searched for. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, those were important job titles, and they're accordingly in the article. His notability does not need to be further demonstrated by adding every mention of him in the press or in scholarly works that follow from these roles, but I agreed with you that his representing the Federal Republic at 2+4 should be mentioned. I assume you have ensured his name is mentioned and linked at all the relevant pages; that means any reader interested in him can come to this page. But the converse is also true; readers interested in 2+4 who read this page have not only a brief explanation but a link they can click (and from there they can go to pages on the issues of NATO expansion and/or the reunification process). Your Google search may well show different results from what I see; to be dealt with in detail here, let alone have a subheading, his participation in the conference would have to be written about in detail by reliable sources writing about him as a major issue in his career. You have not produced any such sources, and nor does the Google search I see; just the same quote, where he is mentioned simply because he's the person being quoted. Are there any sources that are writing about Chrobog, not NATO expansion or German reunification, that discuss those talks specifically as an important part of his career? If not, we should not emphasize those talks in our account of his career. Let me try explaining it this way: if a reader is looking for that quotation, is the page about Jürgen Chrobog the place we want them to go to find the quotation and an explanation of it? Obviously not. Whether they are already on Wikipedia and using its search, or off Wikipedia and searching for the words of the quote on Google or something else, the quote and explanation should be at NATO enlargement and possibly the article on the 2+4 talks. Any explanation here is a distraction leading them away from what they're looking for. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... I'm only proposing to keep a subtitle. I don't insist on laying out all the details relative to 2+4 negotiations here. There is a separate article for that. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then there is no justification for a subtitle. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)